Great video, I have question though. We have a 12 tone system yet all of the theory and nomenclature seems to be based on the major scale. Why have we done this? You keep saying it's just a label, don't worry about it, but half these labels seem to only be a result of using major nomenclature in 12TET. For example, we have augmented and diminished intervals but if we just defined them as the number of tones between the beginning and end points it would be completely self explanatory what that interval was with no need for additional labels. Even back in the first part to this series I was baffled as to why we wouldn't give each unique tone a unique name. From my perspective it seems like these are just kept around as convention from when western music was always in C major. It also seems like it causes a lot of problems in how things are defined and named which just results in a lot of extra, otherwise unnecessary, nomenclature like the augmented and diminished intervals. Had each tone been defined in order, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B we could to basic math as if it was in a base 12 system. One bueaty of this is that there are no accidentals, no double naming, everything is completely clear avoiding any unnecessary naming conventions. Transposing between keys would be hilariously easy as you would just add the number of tones you want to transpose up and then drop the most significant digit. i.e transposing the chord containing the notes 0|4|7 up 6 tones would just be 0+6 = 6, 4+6 = A, 7+6 = 11. Note that all of those numbers are base 12 and not base 10 meaning that 11 base 12 is actually 13 in base 10. We drop the most significant bit in that last term leaving us with the chord 6|A|1. The equivalent would be transposing a I chord in the key of C to a I chord in the key of F# which is easy to say like that but knowing the specific notes that goes into those chords is something that I certainly have extreme difficulty doing. Even if it's easy once you get the hang of it why would we not chose the clearest option? And maybe that's the real problem, not that it's hard once you learn it, but it's hard to beginners for seemingly no reason which leaves me back to the same question, why have we done this to ourselves? Why isn't there an organized movement to switch away from this major scale based nomenclature? Is there just something I'm missing that makes this all make so much more sense than it is to me right now? The language we speak changes and limits the things we are able to say, I feel the same is true for music and it seems stuck in this rut of the major scale.
A great question. I'm definitely not a music historian, and I'm not even formally educated in theory, so my answer isn't going to be authoritative here, but: my understanding is that our current system of nomenclature is a complicated mix that was influenced by a little bit of everything, including some historical serendipity that probably doesn't always serve us today. There sometimes seems to be a strange tension in music theory: to some degree, the purpose and function of the terminology is to communicate notes, scales, chords, etc, to each other, and to some degree the purpose and function is to study and understand the "functional" role of different aspects of the music and thereby to further our conceptual understanding of how the music "works". Take the example that another commenter referred to: the dim7 chord has neither a seven nor a flat seven note in it. This seems bizarre to us, since if you're creating a system to describe chords this is almost willfully obtuse. But from a functional harmony perspective, that last interval is considered a diminished "seventh" which in that context is a diminished flat seventh, which is "enharmonically equivalent" to the 6 note... if you're in the business of describing the "meaning" and "function" of chords, this makes some kind of sense. To we mortals that don't have a degree in theory, it seems strange. But we have one system of terminology that both populations of people use. There can also be debate about this "functional harmony" stuff and how much of it is "real/descriptive" and how much of it is "invented/prescriptive/accident-of-history". My personal opinion is that a lot of it is overblown and excessively academic (which is probably obvious to music theory students when they watch my videos), and I tend to prefer psychoacoustic/evolutionary-biology-type explanations rather than ornate descriptions like "this interval 'wants' to resolve to this because it has this functional relation to that" type stuff, but I won't pretend to know for sure. In terms of the major scale, in particular, it again is a complicated mix. There are some good psychoacoustic reasons why the major scale or scales close to it are used (see my video on the origin of the 12-tone system for some background). It's also a commonly-used scale, so it makes some sense that our terminology would favor it. It's also particular to the history of western harmony, so there is a built-in cultural bias there. I think a strong case can be made that the current system inhibits certain artistic potentials by acting as a bias towards certain ways of thinking about and playing music. (The list of musicians that have inspired millions in large part because they are not educated in music and play it "wrong" is a long list.) But if we reinvented everything in a more modern or "sensible" fashion, that system would also influence the artistry in ways (for example, by making it harder to play/describe major scales, which maybe is a cost we don't want to pay.) There must be tons of different "reform movements" out there to change how we talk about music, and maybe one of them is right on. I'd personally vote for a reform movement that cleared up some of these confusions. It feels to me that many musicians/theorists confuse the "map" with the "territory". The degree to which our theory is telling us something "real" about the music we are playing, vs. just being a handy way to come up with ideas or to categorize and classify what we're doing, is an important distinction, and it seems like the theory terminology works against making this distinction, at least to beginners. Also, I want to say again: I often say in the videos that something is "just a label" -- I should maybe have been more clear that I'm not saying "it's just a label and utterly unimportant and meaningless". Rather, "as far as a beginner need be concerned for now, just treat it like an arbitrary label, and later on you can have the debate about whether there is value to the choice of label, and contemplate the deeper meaning the label may convey."
Well, that is a great question! Now I am no harmony expert such as Cory Henry or Jacob Collier or what have you, but I am at least aware of some things. The main problem is that the 12-tone system isn't mathematically accurate. As the overtone series would have it (I'd recommend looking at some videos about microtonal music, it's quite fascinating) the "true" mathematical ratios between notes are very much NOT divisible by 12 and don't actually coalesce into a singular, solid note system. This means we have to compensate, and "Detune" everything by a certain amount. What the 12 tone system does is approximate everything and approximate it very well, now why is that important you may ask? Well because a #B and a C are not actually the same. As luck would have it fretless instruments exist, and as most violinists would tell you, you have to slightly raise or lower the pitch in certain notes, even though they are in "Unison". This may be incredibly confusing, and is certainly completely irrelevant to new musicians, but there is usually a reason things are in place - as nonsensical as they seem. I will also mention a 12 bas system would exclude almost all Arabic, Indian and generally non western music as they all inhibit some form of microtonality, hell even blues has some (You could fiddle with it though). Hopefully I didn't repeat too much of the OG uploaders response, was in a rush after finishing the vid and tought I'd respond. Short edit: A good example is when he says #C, F, #G combine to create a #C sharp major chord, it is actually a mistake. Intervals are counted by names of notes and not semi tones, a third from C (regardless of being a sharp or flat) would always have to be an E, and the number of semitones determines the name of the third (major, minor etc.) So it's an #E! While it would be easier to read as bD major for pianists and other keyboard instruments as you wouldn't have a note that's technically in unison with another one, because we musicians work with shapes on our instruments - a major shape, minor shape, augmented 11#9 shape (which is a different, very stupid chord) - it's important to be able to think of something as a major third and not a type of fourth, which it instinctively looks like after a long time of playing. This would technically go away in a 12 base numerical system, but as said before, some musicians sith no 12 tone restrictions would play those chords differently.
Ps. The current system gets most of the simple ratios accurate (octave, fifth and the such) starting from all scale degrees (notes) while the musician is left to decide if to bother with tuning.
@@nram3930 friend, you know your stuff, but your answer has nothing to do with the question made and it's also very lakcing of context as to why you said some things, but keep pushing the boundaries of music! Explaining music to others is a very good excersize to remind us not to be too intricate up in our heads.
i honestly believe that # and b notes are the one big reason why music theory is way more complicated than it needs to be. By giving every note the same step value, not just tonal but also visible, it would make many things so much easier. Especially pattern recognition, relations of notes and memorizations of designations in general. Music theory is the perfect example of a craft that is very complicated to learn, just because the system that it usesd to discribe it is unintuitive and flawed.
Just like a word can have different meanings in different context, some notes can have different designations depending on the chord it sits in. It's not to add unnecessary complexity, in my opinion it's kind of sensible for the same note being for example either A♯ or B♭ depending on the "context" of the chord. I do agree it can be a bit daunting at first.
I've been trying to clearly understand music for about 45 years. And I never would have if it hadn't been for this channel. Why does everybody else in the world make it incomprehensible. I can't say thanks enough! Sincerely life changing. I will be contributing financially in the near future. 👍
I love the no-nonsense, clear and concise presentation of these videos. It makes brushing up on theory easier for people who are somewhat familiar but want to fill in the gaps, without spending an hour going over absolute basics
Some things I think are worth noting: often musicians will refer to chords by their numbers relative to the tonic (or "I chord"), but will NOT indicate whether the chord is major or minor, as is done in the video (I'm assuming for simplicity and clarity). While playing in a major scale, a musician may refer to the "vi chord". The chord they are referring to is still a minor chord. You won't need to be told it's minor, because you know that in a major scale the vi chord is always a minor chord, unless you're told otherwise. Also, while the I, IIm, IIIm, etc. roman numeral notation may be acceptable, the more common standard notational method is to indicate the minor chords by writing them with lower case letters, like this: I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, viiᵒ. Hope this helps!
"its just labels" hey. Oh man... thank you for spelling it all out so neatly. I used to THINK it was unnecessarily complicated. Now I KNOW its unnecessarily complicated!
Thank you for this series. I've been a musician by ear for life and whenever teachers would try to teach this stuff to me, it wouldn't make it into my head. You made it simple for me, I really appreciate it.
I have been so stumped with all these other music theory videos until yours. No other video I watched took the time to mention that the theory isn't a rule. They always just say "here's the scale you should use, don't worry about why." I get they do it to stay simplified, but it really bothered me to just take their word for it. All that to say: Thank you, these videos were EXACTLY what I was hoping to find.
Nicely done - the breakneck speed made it drive along nicely and kept my attention as a non-music tutor I know how much talent and time it needs to take complex subjects and break them down into easy-bite-sized steps - You Nailed It Casey! This and part 1 are a masterclass and should be taught in schools....
Your videos are *very* high quality! Additionally, I really love how you try to "foresee" any possible open questions or points of confusion of the listener and immediately include the answer, e.g. "these are just labels, it's just a naming quirk, the major chord has no special indication, etc.", props! This is not common for lecture videos in my experience and I think it is very helpful to include such "FAQs" directly with the actual information. I don't know what effect you use, but your voice is very clear and nicely "mixed" as well.
Hey this is pretty much the best music theory series I have seen on youtube so far! Masters of their craft can always explain concepts in simple to understand terms and diagrams, which you have! Thanks again
This is a fascinating series, especially for a person like me who, as all humans, feels the deep underlying order and beauty in music, but has not theoretical understanding of it. Here's an interesting thing to think about: What, among all the components of music you have talked about (pitch, timbre, note, octave, scale, mode, melody, harmony, chord, interval etc..) are the ones that could be considered "objective" or "universal" (as in: if we meet aliens, they'll have them too for sure), and what components could be considered "subjective" (as in, to our specific culture, namely, western music theory)? Asking this, because, if you want to disrupt you can only disrupt what's not objective. Also, there are a lot of talks online saying that "music theory" is just "western music theory" and that it has no objective values in it. Oddly enough for example, when you think about it, things like "relative" notes, chords, intervals actually, paradoxically, objective, since they describe the mathematical relation between the notes, which has nothing to do with any culture. For example, the octave interval would be objective, even for an alien civilization. Whereas, the "absolute" components, are just conventions, hence subjective, and specific not only to our civilization in space (the west) but also time (modern era) as different absolute scales were used in the past.
In terms of aliens, it's hard to imagine anything as being objective, since they could be unfathomably different from us in so many ways, but if we want to draw a line between objective/cultural in terms of humans, I think you could make an argument that consonance/dissonance is pretty well shared (and likely explained by biology), and thus the octave is probably safely "objective", the fifth maybe "partially objective", and so forth... and you could make the case that the music that most often tends to emerge from this framework is thus in some way objective, but then you're really just playing the odds. E.g. it's not hard to find musical traditions that ignore the fifth, but they are very rare compared to those that respect it. You might check out my video on the origins of the 12 tone scale for some discussion of this (there is even an alien at the end!) Also, re: the videos about music theory vs western music theory; Adam Neely's video at least wasn't (as far as I saw) claiming that music theory in general was necessarily a western thing so much as pointing out that there are many ways to look at music and the theoretical framework most people are actually referring to when they use the term "music theory" is one particular variety. Maybe that's what you meant; just saying it in case others are confused.
@@CaseyConnor Yeah, actually just about to watch your vid about the 12 notes. As you said, the octave (which is an interval) is definitely an objective mathematical reality and not an arbitrary cultural convention. This is because it's double the frequency, hence, in phase. Therefore, I think it's safe to say Aliens would have that in common with us. So, contrary to what Neely said (actually, I was referring to that video, which led me to yours), Western music is not subjective, which makes sense. It would make sense that all musical traditions around the earth (and univrse?) would "trend" toward discovering the universal truths of music (like the octave) while still retaining some cultural specificity. In a way, there's also an historical aspect of localism vs globalization, with classic western music having taken inspiration and "refined" what was called "folklore" music in Europe (such as Rhapsodies for example, or church music), which as unrefined but highly original, and had explored different areas of the objective musical landscape. Love the way you presented the whole thing. The way I now see music has just changed thanks to your vid. I now see music as a continuous pitch line with granular notes, to which you "apply" intervals, such as octaves, scales within these octaves (again, interval) and chords (another interval), like you would apply a tool with a set size anywhere on that granular pitch line, regardless of the absolute pitch notation or notes.
@@CaseyConnor So here are my notes I just took about which components are objective for now, feel free to correct me: -Absolute notes: are objectives because they correspond to a specific frequency -Perceived notes: are actually also objectives but only when compared to other perceived notes, so, the interval between notes is objective -Timbre: is objective because it's the signature set of vibrations that corresponds to a specific instrument type -Timbre's emotional impact: is objective because it's a set of vibrations frequencies that is produced as a single entity -However, it's subjective in that notes can be played in any instrument (though, producing different emotional responses) -Note intervals: are objective because they correspond to specific mathematical ratios -Octaves: are definitely objective because they correspond to a specific mathematical ratio where frequency waves align (are in phase?) -Scales: are objective in that, first, they correspond to note intervals, and second, they do produce a specific emotional response -Chords: are objective because they correspond to the note intervals, but played simultaneously to produce another specific emotional response
Questions left to answer: why do certain intervals produce certain specific types of emotions? Like, why do the "dark" scale feel dark? What's the mechanism there? I imagine this would have less chance to produce the same effect on aliens, but even then, I'm not sure. At least, it seems to be relatively universal among all humans. I remember watching a documentary about some filmmakers making an Amazonian tribe listen to Maria Callas and them saying that they found it moving that that they could feel the sadness in Maria's voice (despite complete cultural isolation). So, not sure what this implies..
Damn, melody part was easy to understand, now i'm scratching my head since last 15 min in this video. Btw, great knowledge at free of cost! def gonna donate you, others provide this kinda courses for hundreds of dollars.
A million thanks for organizing your three videos. It really allows a student to conceptualize the whole phenomenon of music rather than just memorizing disparate, random information, which is how we've been taught for so long. Even though I'll have to re-watch a number of times to get it imprinted in my brain, it's so much easier if you understand the bigger picture and how names or labels were created. I made a donation on your link and encourage everyone else if this put all the pieces together like it did for me.
Dude.. I'm a drummer and scales/harmony was my nightmare, after watching this i don't have to cry anymore if my bandmates are talking about a riff, thanks mate!
I am already familiar with these concepts, but I've always learned this for guitar and keyboard and with "normal" notes. So interesting to see it on your note-scale! And also very nicely put together, the knowledge and the video too. Thanks!
Music theory to me is an unpredictable beast that sometimes makes sense and sometimes feels like it's killing me, weird feeling. These videos help me to tame the beast, so thank you very much sir :)
Kinda funny actually, there is a lot of internal concictency and logic in there, its just stupidly annoying to get at first. It's not a sixth (in unison with it but it's called under a different name), but a diminished seventh - hence the dim7 name. But yeah it can get stupid sometimes.
0:00 -- intervals 1:58 -- chords 2:08 -- harmonization of a scale 4:28 -- applying harmonization to absolute pitch names 6:02 -- chord voicings 6:48 -- naming chords with color notes 8:46 -- chord progressions and melodies 9:55 -- these are not rules 10:19 -- approaching a new piece of music, etc. 11:20 -- begging for money
Woah, thanks! These were things I actually sort of guessed were the case, as I've seen quite a lot of things written down like the A/E thing, or I IV V, circle of fifths and so on. However, I was never able to find a place that clearly explains it all (notation wise and what the underlying structure is) from the ground up. This perfectly did the job!
Not hailing from a musical background, I always wondered how the major scale harmonization was constructed, how the 2nd chord was a minor, the 4th a major, etc. You explained this so well, it was an epiphany for me. Thanks a ton, mate! My guitar playing became a lot more enjoyable with this new found understanding. Cheers!
I'm glad this video teaches music theory in a clear and minimalistic way, without too many opinions and own takes on the subject. And thumbs up you wrote these are not rules, as they are not, just tools to use. Keep it up Casey!
I've been trying to explain exactly this idea to my friends trying to get into music for so long, this is perfect and the love the minimal aesthetic, great job
Excellently explained. Bravo for the very concious effort to make sure that theory is (as you said) just bunch of labels to better understand and communicate music and musical ideas. I've studied theory for many years but I've suggested these videos to my friend as he's beginning to learn theory. Hopefully, by watching these videos, he (and other viewers) won't fall into the same pit I did in school where I was, in way, lead to believe that theory almost defined music. It really does not. It took me so long after finishing school to realise and come to terms with the fact that there are no rules in music. I have found the best way to explain what music theory is that it's a translation the language of music to a spoken language and as said in this video (it's just a bunch of labels). My only complaint with this video is not spelling the C#major scale properly. Don't lead them to believe seeing an E# or a B# is wrong. Please 😂. Keep up the great content.
I discover this video now. As of this second video I know everything of the content. But this is very good. I was eager to go on with next videos to learn something because the teaching is very good. I am sad there are none. I will gladly send some bucks for such a good contents for theories I dont know yet ! Good work
Man! I love these videos. I've been though several music theory course, but I love the directness of these videos. It takes away what truly makes music theory difficult. Of course i'm talking about superficial "rules" given to us by people who; yes been making music for longer, but just because there more experienced doesn't mean they can say "that is just a bunch of fifth interval, and very easy. you should learn more advance music theory before you make music, oug!" that's just not fair. so back to my point, I really like what your doing here, it works as a great reference to go back to. Thanks man!
Make sure to check the video description for a list of corrections/clarifications; there were no terrible mistakes (that anyone has noticed yet) but a couple points are mentioned there.
Note to the errata: C# and Db are not always identical, if temperaments other than the equal temperament are considered. I understand this video is for beginners, but it's also important to know that everything exists for some reasons.
I can't recall if this was specifically pointed out, but sometimes Roman numerals in small caps (i ii iii iv etc.) is used to denote minors instead of appending the 'm' after a capital Roman numeral.
Damn, thanks very much. Your videos on music theory are very helpful! The explanations are clear and easy to understand. I've been struggling a lot with music theory for the past few months and now I'm starting to get it very smoothly. Thanks a lot!
hahaa these videos take like weeks 2 produce,... so if you have a dolar/1000/million,...... thats legendary!!!! Bro! your video is really, clearing up a lot of questions i had for years! :) I will donate next month! :)
I've been messing with a ukulele for the last couple years, I was able to grasp the noises and how to get them, but this is really putting it into a perspective to understand how to get farther, I'm looking forward to rythym because I have 0.
At 4:50 "C# D# F F# G# A# A C#" as the spelling of the C# major scale hurts my eyes. I should have known that was going to happen when you earlier said something like "there is no E#" (which of course there is, although you chose to call if F and confuse every musician watching this :) ).
10:50 So often I play on stage and the guy says it's in a certain key, Knowing the pattern allows me to transpose instantly and look like a boss. It's just the theory you espouse! Great video...again..!
Best and most compact music theoretical summary I have ever seen! ! ! Very interesting and HELPFUL to tie the loose ends together. Thank you very much for the visualization and explanation! Best regards. (Looking forward to more videos ...)
this is enlightening and liberating :) understanding all these makes me appreciate The Beatles songwriting even more. genius songwriting we rarely hear these days. absolutely grateful for this Casey :)
The way you name intervals is different to how I, and the people around me, name them. We call the intervals Unison, Fourth, Fifth and Octave Perfect, all other intervals we call Major. If any Major interval is flattened we call it Minor. If any Minor interval is flattened we call it Diminished. If a Major interval is sharpened we call it Augmented. Never before have I heard of a perfect sixth or perfect third, and I've been exposed to many schools of musical thought.
Also, in this system. A dim7 chord has 1, minor 3, dim 5, dim 7. This makes more sense then saying that a dim7 is a dim triad with a 6th. I'm sure your future students will appreciate that tiny brainsore. Hehe
Yeah -- you're correct. Check the errata in the video description: there's a note about this already (another viewer also noticed). I was unclear in this part for sure. I'm also not formally trained in music theory, and it shows on this subject.
God Bless You. You really want to teach. Lot of people speak gibberish and try to make money through RUclips. Please create a way to buy these videos with copy right restrictions that prevent users from uploading to youtube.
4:45 oof, seeing F instead of E# and C instead of B# really hurt my brain, current music Major lol. I'm watching all your theory videos and I'm really liking them so far, it's a different approach than I've learned and taught (mostly due to the lack of piano) but it actually makes more sense in the scheme of things.
@@CaseyConnor great videos. Clearly explained. I think you might, given this is not a peer-reviewed journal but a public video platform, be permitted the use of the word errors instead of errata, although I'm sure everyone knows what you mean.
Great video, I have question though. We have a 12 tone system yet all of the theory and nomenclature seems to be based on the major scale. Why have we done this? You keep saying it's just a label, don't worry about it, but half these labels seem to only be a result of using major nomenclature in 12TET. For example, we have augmented and diminished intervals but if we just defined them as the number of tones between the beginning and end points it would be completely self explanatory what that interval was with no need for additional labels. Even back in the first part to this series I was baffled as to why we wouldn't give each unique tone a unique name. From my perspective it seems like these are just kept around as convention from when western music was always in C major. It also seems like it causes a lot of problems in how things are defined and named which just results in a lot of extra, otherwise unnecessary, nomenclature like the augmented and diminished intervals.
Had each tone been defined in order, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B we could to basic math as if it was in a base 12 system. One bueaty of this is that there are no accidentals, no double naming, everything is completely clear avoiding any unnecessary naming conventions. Transposing between keys would be hilariously easy as you would just add the number of tones you want to transpose up and then drop the most significant digit. i.e transposing the chord containing the notes 0|4|7 up 6 tones would just be 0+6 = 6, 4+6 = A, 7+6 = 11. Note that all of those numbers are base 12 and not base 10 meaning that 11 base 12 is actually 13 in base 10. We drop the most significant bit in that last term leaving us with the chord 6|A|1. The equivalent would be transposing a I chord in the key of C to a I chord in the key of F# which is easy to say like that but knowing the specific notes that goes into those chords is something that I certainly have extreme difficulty doing. Even if it's easy once you get the hang of it why would we not chose the clearest option?
And maybe that's the real problem, not that it's hard once you learn it, but it's hard to beginners for seemingly no reason which leaves me back to the same question, why have we done this to ourselves? Why isn't there an organized movement to switch away from this major scale based nomenclature? Is there just something I'm missing that makes this all make so much more sense than it is to me right now? The language we speak changes and limits the things we are able to say, I feel the same is true for music and it seems stuck in this rut of the major scale.
A great question. I'm definitely not a music historian, and I'm not even formally educated in theory, so my answer isn't going to be authoritative here, but: my understanding is that our current system of nomenclature is a complicated mix that was influenced by a little bit of everything, including some historical serendipity that probably doesn't always serve us today. There sometimes seems to be a strange tension in music theory: to some degree, the purpose and function of the terminology is to communicate notes, scales, chords, etc, to each other, and to some degree the purpose and function is to study and understand the "functional" role of different aspects of the music and thereby to further our conceptual understanding of how the music "works". Take the example that another commenter referred to: the dim7 chord has neither a seven nor a flat seven note in it. This seems bizarre to us, since if you're creating a system to describe chords this is almost willfully obtuse. But from a functional harmony perspective, that last interval is considered a diminished "seventh" which in that context is a diminished flat seventh, which is "enharmonically equivalent" to the 6 note... if you're in the business of describing the "meaning" and "function" of chords, this makes some kind of sense. To we mortals that don't have a degree in theory, it seems strange. But we have one system of terminology that both populations of people use. There can also be debate about this "functional harmony" stuff and how much of it is "real/descriptive" and how much of it is "invented/prescriptive/accident-of-history". My personal opinion is that a lot of it is overblown and excessively academic (which is probably obvious to music theory students when they watch my videos), and I tend to prefer psychoacoustic/evolutionary-biology-type explanations rather than ornate descriptions like "this interval 'wants' to resolve to this because it has this functional relation to that" type stuff, but I won't pretend to know for sure.
In terms of the major scale, in particular, it again is a complicated mix. There are some good psychoacoustic reasons why the major scale or scales close to it are used (see my video on the origin of the 12-tone system for some background). It's also a commonly-used scale, so it makes some sense that our terminology would favor it. It's also particular to the history of western harmony, so there is a built-in cultural bias there.
I think a strong case can be made that the current system inhibits certain artistic potentials by acting as a bias towards certain ways of thinking about and playing music. (The list of musicians that have inspired millions in large part because they are not educated in music and play it "wrong" is a long list.) But if we reinvented everything in a more modern or "sensible" fashion, that system would also influence the artistry in ways (for example, by making it harder to play/describe major scales, which maybe is a cost we don't want to pay.) There must be tons of different "reform movements" out there to change how we talk about music, and maybe one of them is right on.
I'd personally vote for a reform movement that cleared up some of these confusions. It feels to me that many musicians/theorists confuse the "map" with the "territory". The degree to which our theory is telling us something "real" about the music we are playing, vs. just being a handy way to come up with ideas or to categorize and classify what we're doing, is an important distinction, and it seems like the theory terminology works against making this distinction, at least to beginners.
Also, I want to say again: I often say in the videos that something is "just a label" -- I should maybe have been more clear that I'm not saying "it's just a label and utterly unimportant and meaningless". Rather, "as far as a beginner need be concerned for now, just treat it like an arbitrary label, and later on you can have the debate about whether there is value to the choice of label, and contemplate the deeper meaning the label may convey."
Well, that is a great question!
Now I am no harmony expert such as Cory Henry or Jacob Collier or what have you, but I am at least aware of some things.
The main problem is that the 12-tone system isn't mathematically accurate. As the overtone series would have it (I'd recommend looking at some videos about microtonal music, it's quite fascinating) the "true" mathematical ratios between notes are very much NOT divisible by 12 and don't actually coalesce into a singular, solid note system.
This means we have to compensate, and "Detune" everything by a certain amount. What the 12 tone system does is approximate everything and approximate it very well, now why is that important you may ask?
Well because a #B and a C are not actually the same. As luck would have it fretless instruments exist, and as most violinists would tell you, you have to slightly raise or lower the pitch in certain notes, even though they are in "Unison".
This may be incredibly confusing, and is certainly completely irrelevant to new musicians, but there is usually a reason things are in place - as nonsensical as they seem.
I will also mention a 12 bas system would exclude almost all Arabic, Indian and generally non western music as they all inhibit some form of microtonality, hell even blues has some (You could fiddle with it though).
Hopefully I didn't repeat too much of the OG uploaders response, was in a rush after finishing the vid and tought I'd respond.
Short edit:
A good example is when he says #C, F, #G combine to create a #C sharp major chord, it is actually a mistake. Intervals are counted by names of notes and not semi tones, a third from C (regardless of being a sharp or flat) would always have to be an E, and the number of semitones determines the name of the third (major, minor etc.)
So it's an #E!
While it would be easier to read as bD major for pianists and other keyboard instruments as you wouldn't have a note that's technically in unison with another one, because we musicians work with shapes on our instruments - a major shape, minor shape, augmented 11#9 shape (which is a different, very stupid chord) - it's important to be able to think of something as a major third and not a type of fourth, which it instinctively looks like after a long time of playing.
This would technically go away in a 12 base numerical system, but as said before, some musicians sith no 12 tone restrictions would play those chords differently.
Ps. The current system gets most of the simple ratios accurate (octave, fifth and the such) starting from all scale degrees (notes) while the musician is left to decide if to bother with tuning.
@@nram3930 friend, you know your stuff, but your answer has nothing to do with the question made and it's also very lakcing of context as to why you said some things, but keep pushing the boundaries of music! Explaining music to others is a very good excersize to remind us not to be too intricate up in our heads.
@@monowavy yeah I did feel like I was rambling on with some nonsense, still working on explaining myself.
i honestly believe that # and b notes are the one big reason why music theory is way more complicated than it needs to be.
By giving every note the same step value, not just tonal but also visible, it would make many things so much easier. Especially pattern recognition, relations of notes and memorizations of designations in general.
Music theory is the perfect example of a craft that is very complicated to learn, just because the system that it usesd to discribe it is unintuitive and flawed.
Just like a word can have different meanings in different context, some notes can have different designations depending on the chord it sits in. It's not to add unnecessary complexity, in my opinion it's kind of sensible for the same note being for example either A♯ or B♭ depending on the "context" of the chord. I do agree it can be a bit daunting at first.
Some scales have 4 semitones between each tones, consider yourself lucky haha.
´´Never let theory be a constraint on your expression´´ I felt that.
this is the best music theory tutorial I've ever seen in my life, very nice job!!!!
"We mostly try to stick to that scale"
Jazz musicians: *No, I don't think I will.*
When you see that pfp you know its a meme
@@isaiahminott thanks
I've been trying to clearly understand music for about 45 years. And I never would have if it hadn't been for this channel. Why does everybody else in the world make it incomprehensible. I can't say thanks enough! Sincerely life changing. I will be contributing financially in the near future. 👍
I love the no-nonsense, clear and concise presentation of these videos. It makes brushing up on theory easier for people who are somewhat familiar but want to fill in the gaps, without spending an hour going over absolute basics
YES
this is pure gold, I just have to watch it 20 times at least
Some things I think are worth noting: often musicians will refer to chords by their numbers relative to the tonic (or "I chord"), but will NOT indicate whether the chord is major or minor, as is done in the video (I'm assuming for simplicity and clarity). While playing in a major scale, a musician may refer to the "vi chord". The chord they are referring to is still a minor chord. You won't need to be told it's minor, because you know that in a major scale the vi chord is always a minor chord, unless you're told otherwise. Also, while the I, IIm, IIIm, etc. roman numeral notation may be acceptable, the more common standard notational method is to indicate the minor chords by writing them with lower case letters, like this: I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, viiᵒ. Hope this helps!
"its just labels" hey. Oh man... thank you for spelling it all out so neatly. I used to THINK it was unnecessarily complicated. Now I KNOW its unnecessarily complicated!
I have been into music for over fifty years and this is the best way to visualize intervals that I have ever seen.
Awesome, glad to hear it!
"It's inconsistent. You can tell musicians made this system up". Good one !
I've been through a ton of chord tutorials and I wish I had watched this one first and saved time. Thank you
Thank you for this series. I've been a musician by ear for life and whenever teachers would try to teach this stuff to me, it wouldn't make it into my head. You made it simple for me, I really appreciate it.
I have been so stumped with all these other music theory videos until yours. No other video I watched took the time to mention that the theory isn't a rule. They always just say "here's the scale you should use, don't worry about why." I get they do it to stay simplified, but it really bothered me to just take their word for it.
All that to say: Thank you, these videos were EXACTLY what I was hoping to find.
"Knowing these patterns allows you to bend them intentionally" Mind = Blown
My salute to you. You have made learning music simple. Most teachers never teach this way. My respects for you for life.
Nicely done - the breakneck speed made it drive along nicely and kept my attention as a non-music tutor I know how much talent and time it needs to take complex subjects and break them down into easy-bite-sized steps - You Nailed It Casey! This and part 1 are a masterclass and should be taught in schools....
Those are *THE BEST* music theory videos I've seen on youtube in years! Thank you!
Your videos are *very* high quality! Additionally, I really love how you try to "foresee" any possible open questions or points of confusion of the listener and immediately include the answer, e.g. "these are just labels, it's just a naming quirk, the major chord has no special indication, etc.", props! This is not common for lecture videos in my experience and I think it is very helpful to include such "FAQs" directly with the actual information. I don't know what effect you use, but your voice is very clear and nicely "mixed" as well.
"Sometimes things happen that no amount of music theory can explain."
Jazz in a nutshell.
Hey this is pretty much the best music theory series I have seen on youtube so far! Masters of their craft can always explain concepts in simple to understand terms and diagrams, which you have! Thanks again
This is like 3B1B for music, at first it makes me feel stupid for not understanding but then it all suddenly makes sense
This is a fascinating series, especially for a person like me who, as all humans, feels the deep underlying order and beauty in music, but has not theoretical understanding of it.
Here's an interesting thing to think about:
What, among all the components of music you have talked about (pitch, timbre, note, octave, scale, mode, melody, harmony, chord, interval etc..) are the ones that could be considered "objective" or "universal" (as in: if we meet aliens, they'll have them too for sure), and what components could be considered "subjective" (as in, to our specific culture, namely, western music theory)?
Asking this, because, if you want to disrupt you can only disrupt what's not objective. Also, there are a lot of talks online saying that "music theory" is just "western music theory" and that it has no objective values in it.
Oddly enough for example, when you think about it, things like "relative" notes, chords, intervals actually, paradoxically, objective, since they describe the mathematical relation between the notes, which has nothing to do with any culture. For example, the octave interval would be objective, even for an alien civilization.
Whereas, the "absolute" components, are just conventions, hence subjective, and specific not only to our civilization in space (the west) but also time (modern era) as different absolute scales were used in the past.
In terms of aliens, it's hard to imagine anything as being objective, since they could be unfathomably different from us in so many ways, but if we want to draw a line between objective/cultural in terms of humans, I think you could make an argument that consonance/dissonance is pretty well shared (and likely explained by biology), and thus the octave is probably safely "objective", the fifth maybe "partially objective", and so forth... and you could make the case that the music that most often tends to emerge from this framework is thus in some way objective, but then you're really just playing the odds. E.g. it's not hard to find musical traditions that ignore the fifth, but they are very rare compared to those that respect it. You might check out my video on the origins of the 12 tone scale for some discussion of this (there is even an alien at the end!) Also, re: the videos about music theory vs western music theory; Adam Neely's video at least wasn't (as far as I saw) claiming that music theory in general was necessarily a western thing so much as pointing out that there are many ways to look at music and the theoretical framework most people are actually referring to when they use the term "music theory" is one particular variety. Maybe that's what you meant; just saying it in case others are confused.
@@CaseyConnor Yeah, actually just about to watch your vid about the 12 notes.
As you said, the octave (which is an interval) is definitely an objective mathematical reality and not an arbitrary cultural convention. This is because it's double the frequency, hence, in phase.
Therefore, I think it's safe to say Aliens would have that in common with us.
So, contrary to what Neely said (actually, I was referring to that video, which led me to yours), Western music is not subjective, which makes sense. It would make sense that all musical traditions around the earth (and univrse?) would "trend" toward discovering the universal truths of music (like the octave) while still retaining some cultural specificity.
In a way, there's also an historical aspect of localism vs globalization, with classic western music having taken inspiration and "refined" what was called "folklore" music in Europe (such as Rhapsodies for example, or church music), which as unrefined but highly original, and had explored different areas of the objective musical landscape.
Love the way you presented the whole thing. The way I now see music has just changed thanks to your vid. I now see music as a continuous pitch line with granular notes, to which you "apply" intervals, such as octaves, scales within these octaves (again, interval) and chords (another interval), like you would apply a tool with a set size anywhere on that granular pitch line, regardless of the absolute pitch notation or notes.
@@CaseyConnor So here are my notes I just took about which components are objective for now, feel free to correct me:
-Absolute notes: are objectives because they correspond to a specific frequency
-Perceived notes: are actually also objectives but only when compared to other perceived notes, so, the interval between notes is objective
-Timbre: is objective because it's the signature set of vibrations that corresponds to a specific instrument type
-Timbre's emotional impact: is objective because it's a set of vibrations frequencies that is produced as a single entity
-However, it's subjective in that notes can be played in any instrument (though, producing different emotional responses)
-Note intervals: are objective because they correspond to specific mathematical ratios
-Octaves: are definitely objective because they correspond to a specific mathematical ratio where frequency waves align (are in phase?)
-Scales: are objective in that, first, they correspond to note intervals, and second, they do produce a specific emotional response
-Chords: are objective because they correspond to the note intervals, but played simultaneously to produce another specific emotional response
Questions left to answer: why do certain intervals produce certain specific types of emotions?
Like, why do the "dark" scale feel dark? What's the mechanism there?
I imagine this would have less chance to produce the same effect on aliens, but even then, I'm not sure.
At least, it seems to be relatively universal among all humans. I remember watching a documentary about some filmmakers making an Amazonian tribe listen to Maria Callas and them saying that they found it moving that that they could feel the sadness in Maria's voice (despite complete cultural isolation). So, not sure what this implies..
You are literally the greatest, I can’t imagine why this video has only so few views, this helped me so much
Ok this is inconsistent you can tell musicians made this is an amazing accurate description
Damn, melody part was easy to understand, now i'm scratching my head since last 15 min in this video.
Btw, great knowledge at free of cost! def gonna donate you, others provide this kinda courses for hundreds of dollars.
A million thanks for organizing your three videos. It really allows a student to conceptualize the whole phenomenon of music rather than just memorizing disparate, random information, which is how we've been taught for so long. Even though I'll have to re-watch a number of times to get it imprinted in my brain, it's so much easier if you understand the bigger picture and how names or labels were created. I made a donation on your link and encourage everyone else if this put all the pieces together like it did for me.
Dude I've been trying to understand dominant chords for like 2 years and for some reason this just taught me in like two seconds.
Thanks a lot man. This is hands down, the best music theory content so far.
Dude.. I'm a drummer and scales/harmony was my nightmare, after watching this i don't have to cry anymore if my bandmates are talking about a riff, thanks mate!
omfg i finally know what those wacky guitar chord names mean thank you so much
I am already familiar with these concepts, but I've always learned this for guitar and keyboard and with "normal" notes. So interesting to see it on your note-scale! And also very nicely put together, the knowledge and the video too. Thanks!
Music theory to me is an unpredictable beast that sometimes makes sense and sometimes feels like it's killing me, weird feeling. These videos help me to tame the beast, so thank you very much sir :)
"It's inconsistent, yes, you can tell musicians made this system up" XD
Kinda funny actually, there is a lot of internal concictency and logic in there, its just stupidly annoying to get at first. It's not a sixth (in unison with it but it's called under a different name), but a diminished seventh - hence the dim7 name.
But yeah it can get stupid sometimes.
0:00 -- intervals
1:58 -- chords
2:08 -- harmonization of a scale
4:28 -- applying harmonization to absolute pitch names
6:02 -- chord voicings
6:48 -- naming chords with color notes
8:46 -- chord progressions and melodies
9:55 -- these are not rules
10:19 -- approaching a new piece of music, etc.
11:20 -- begging for money
"note that if someone says C#, you don't know if they are referring to the C# note, or C# chord."
yeah, or the programming language.
These videos are so clear and efficient. Great job
Woah, thanks! These were things I actually sort of guessed were the case, as I've seen quite a lot of things written down like the A/E thing, or I IV V, circle of fifths and so on. However, I was never able to find a place that clearly explains it all (notation wise and what the underlying structure is) from the ground up. This perfectly did the job!
I never thought I would learn it so easily. Thanks! 👍 Keep the good work going.
I LOVE YOU :3 I'm a musician so I know almost everything but you make me feel impressed and learning anyway
Not hailing from a musical background, I always wondered how the major scale harmonization was constructed, how the 2nd chord was a minor, the 4th a major, etc. You explained this so well, it was an epiphany for me. Thanks a ton, mate! My guitar playing became a lot more enjoyable with this new found understanding. Cheers!
I'm glad this video teaches music theory in a clear and minimalistic way, without too many opinions and own takes on the subject. And thumbs up you wrote these are not rules, as they are not, just tools to use. Keep it up Casey!
This is easily my most favorite video on all of youtube.
Nice. :-)
07:17 "It's inconsistent, yes. You can tell musicians made this system up." lmfao. Thanks for these videos, i was always so confused by these things.
I've been trying to explain exactly this idea to my friends trying to get into music for so long, this is perfect and the love the minimal aesthetic, great job
Excellently explained. Bravo for the very concious effort to make sure that theory is (as you said) just bunch of labels to better understand and communicate music and musical ideas. I've studied theory for many years but I've suggested these videos to my friend as he's beginning to learn theory. Hopefully, by watching these videos, he (and other viewers) won't fall into the same pit I did in school where I was, in way, lead to believe that theory almost defined music. It really does not. It took me so long after finishing school to realise and come to terms with the fact that there are no rules in music. I have found the best way to explain what music theory is that it's a translation the language of music to a spoken language and as said in this video (it's just a bunch of labels).
My only complaint with this video is not spelling the C#major scale properly. Don't lead them to believe seeing an E# or a B# is wrong. Please 😂.
Keep up the great content.
Thanks! And yeah, see the video description for the mea culpa on the C# scale.
I discover this video now. As of this second video I know everything of the content. But this is very good. I was eager to go on with next videos to learn something because the teaching is very good. I am sad there are none. I will gladly send some bucks for such a good contents for theories I dont know yet ! Good work
Man! I love these videos. I've been though several music theory course, but I love the directness of these videos. It takes away what truly makes music theory difficult. Of course i'm talking about superficial "rules" given to us by people who; yes been making music for longer, but just because there more experienced doesn't mean they can say "that is just a bunch of fifth interval, and very easy. you should learn more advance music theory before you make music, oug!" that's just not fair. so back to my point, I really like what your doing here, it works as a great reference to go back to. Thanks man!
Make sure to check the video description for a list of corrections/clarifications; there were no terrible mistakes (that anyone has noticed yet) but a couple points are mentioned there.
Masterful content thank you so much
Note to the errata: C# and Db are not always identical, if temperaments other than the equal temperament are considered. I understand this video is for beginners, but it's also important to know that everything exists for some reasons.
I can't recall if this was specifically pointed out, but sometimes Roman numerals in small caps (i ii iii iv etc.) is used to denote minors instead of appending the 'm' after a capital Roman numeral.
@@basilfoxworth7089 Yeah, I intentionally avoided discussion of the many systems of chord notation, but thanks for mentioning it!
Hindu - Arabic numerals 😊
Damn, thanks very much. Your videos on music theory are very helpful! The explanations are clear and easy to understand. I've been struggling a lot with music theory for the past few months and now I'm starting to get it very smoothly. Thanks a lot!
hahaa these videos take like weeks 2 produce,... so if you have a dolar/1000/million,...... thats legendary!!!!
Bro! your video is really, clearing up a lot of questions i had for years! :)
I will donate next month! :)
This is so helpful it’s crazy. Had to watch it at 0.75x speed to take in all the information
Thank Conor. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say I appreciate the time and effort you put into your content.
This should be a part of every music school education.
Where have you been?!!! Thank you!!!!!
Thanks for all three videos, I had an interview for drums, but I needed to learn music theories. These videos really helped me a lot.
You showed the best instrument to visualize.... 😊
1.1k upvotes, not _a single_ downvote. That has got to be some sort of record....
Why this video is not viral yet????
It will be
these are great, haven't learned anything because this is what I do but will comment because I know that helps get the video recommended to others
you deserve much more than 3k followers man, keep smashing!!
I've been messing with a ukulele for the last couple years, I was able to grasp the noises and how to get them, but this is really putting it into a perspective to understand how to get farther, I'm looking forward to rythym because I have 0.
9:01 and _that's_ called "Jazz"
My brain is so melting now ;) i as a child was playing accordeon for 5 years, but in this video i dont understand 80% :)
Incredible! You explain so good!! Thanks..I will donate.. keep on
7:20 "you can tell musicians made the system up" lol that's funny
Amazing video. So thorough and easy to understand.
Smashing like on all of these videos. Clearly you’ve put in a lot of work for these videos.
Hours of music theory in 10 minutes for free nice !
you know how to talk concisely and understandably. really great videos you're making! they could be a course if there were examples present.
What a beautiful video, thanks for all this knowledge transmitted in a simple way to learn.
Greetings from Brazil!
This is fantastic! Appreciate the amount of work you must have put in for this!
This is one of the most interesting and informative videos man! Keep it up!!! Great Work
These are very helpful! Make a video about what feelings each chord in certain modes evoke!
Oh man, this blowing out my mind. All these things seem so simple. At the music school, everything was more like quantum physics. Thank you very much!
"Its inconsistent, yes. You can tell musicians made this system up"
"50 cents or a dollar or a thousand dollars or a million dollars"
this honestly had me laughing
At 4:50 "C# D# F F# G# A# A C#" as the spelling of the C# major scale hurts my eyes. I should have known that was going to happen when you earlier said something like "there is no E#" (which of course there is, although you chose to call if F and confuse every musician watching this :) ).
in german we call it "Enharmonische Verwechslung"
C#D#EF#G#AB#...
Praise man. This is exactly what I needed. keep making content!
10:50 So often I play on stage and the guy says it's in a certain key, Knowing the pattern allows me to transpose instantly and look like a boss. It's just the theory you espouse! Great video...again..!
You're a a really good teacher man!! Keep doing this!
Mortal man is eternally grateful to you, Prometheus.
1k likes, 0 dislikes. First time witnessing this.
this is definitely useful to anyone who wants to learn music. Sir thx for ur fabulous work!
Okay why does this not have 1M+ views
Tristan people are to lazy to learn music theory
Best and most compact music theoretical summary I have ever seen! ! !
Very interesting and HELPFUL to tie the loose ends together.
Thank you very much for the visualization and explanation!
Best regards.
(Looking forward to more videos ...)
I have been produced for one year and this will help me for sure.
this is enlightening and liberating :) understanding all these makes me appreciate The Beatles songwriting even more. genius songwriting we rarely hear these days. absolutely grateful for this Casey :)
This is definitely the best video series on music theory. Well made animation and deliberate plan creates such an easy to understand course. Good job!
omfg, finally i found actually good lessons
The way you name intervals is different to how I, and the people around me, name them. We call the intervals Unison, Fourth, Fifth and Octave Perfect, all other intervals we call Major. If any Major interval is flattened we call it Minor. If any Minor interval is flattened we call it Diminished. If a Major interval is sharpened we call it Augmented. Never before have I heard of a perfect sixth or perfect third, and I've been exposed to many schools of musical thought.
Otherwise, excellent video. :)
Also, in this system. A dim7 chord has 1, minor 3, dim 5, dim 7. This makes more sense then saying that a dim7 is a dim triad with a 6th. I'm sure your future students will appreciate that tiny brainsore. Hehe
Yeah -- you're correct. Check the errata in the video description: there's a note about this already (another viewer also noticed). I was unclear in this part for sure. I'm also not formally trained in music theory, and it shows on this subject.
@@CaseyConnor You've done really well for being self taught. These are really entertaining.
God Bless You. You really want to teach. Lot of people speak gibberish and try to make money through RUclips. Please create a way to buy these videos with copy right restrictions that prevent users from uploading to youtube.
Damn dude you break it down in a totally understandable way. Good stuff 👍
you deserve more views and attention dude
Dude these videos are awesome! Animations and your explanations are perfect.
great video man no wonder you have no dislikes, cause u are very cool and good
Been learning music theory for a few months and this is where I seem to struggle.
4:45 oof, seeing F instead of E# and C instead of B# really hurt my brain, current music Major lol. I'm watching all your theory videos and I'm really liking them so far, it's a different approach than I've learned and taught (mostly due to the lack of piano) but it actually makes more sense in the scheme of things.
Good to hear, and yeah, sorry for that F. :-) I noted it in the errata.
@@CaseyConnor great videos. Clearly explained. I think you might, given this is not a peer-reviewed journal but a public video platform, be permitted the use of the word errors instead of errata, although I'm sure everyone knows what you mean.
Video is like a revision for music students mins before exam.. 😂 😂 Good Job